robsker

Because that doesn't fall in the last 1.5 years? Perhaps it's better to address why you chose 1.5 seasons instead of 2. Doing that allowed you to ignore the Ohio State loss. And while the victory against Wisconsin is great, they have pounded us twice and were a better team last season. They have been better than us each season since we joined the B1G. People on this site seem really to dislike Wisconsin. I don't blame them... I do not like them either. But people here dismiss them as well --- and that is just not reasonable at all. Redmusky is quite correct. Wisconsin has been better than NU each year since we were in conference. Same with OSU. And most years someone else has snuck in there too. People also dismiss last years Iowa team as if somehow it is inconceivable that Iowa could be better in a given year than NU. Well they were... last year. Over time, of course Wisconsin and Iowa fall far short of NU in the historic sense. That said, the last 10 years or so have been the weakest set of seasons in NU's past 40 or so years. NU is nothing --- not even a shadow of its former self. It is what it is.

So we've been in the CCG three of the last five years. And since we've joined the B1G, we have the third best record in conference play, barely behind two teams that were in the Top 5 last year and we only have a losing record against one team in conference (iirc), a team coming off a 20+ game winning streak. But we're not a contender. Got it. upper middle is good. I never said it was not. Now... NU has been, as you say, #3. That is what I say too. And numerically the # 3 is close to the #1 and implies perhaps being a contender. But NU, upon closer inspection, has not been actually competitive with any of the conference champions these past 4 years. MSU this year, OSU teams since Meyer, or the Wisconsin teams... each were handily beyond NU in those respective seasons.

I do see concrete reason to predict meaningful sustained advancement in the immediate future. I'm picking rivals just because I have the information available. 2008 Rivals ranked class of 30 2009 Rivals ranked class of 28 2010 Rivals ranked class of 23 2011 Rivals ranked class of 15 Now do the math...add 4 and 5 years to 2011 and 2010 to find out when the seniors are coming up to contribute their final 2 years. Now think of the 2012 class and note that we had the 25th ranked class that year despite taking less than 20 scholarship players (harder to do) and then look at the names on that 2012 list. Almost every single one of those players are contributing NOW and are good players for us and I don't think anyone that reads those names would state that any of them aren't poised to contribute AT or ABOVE the same level they've contributed thus far. So, we have 3 top 25 years of recruits coming into their sophomore, junior, and senior years of playing and contributing. THAT is a positive trend and it is getting more skilled players on the field than we EVER have had the entire time that Bo Pelini has been coaching. Think I'm nuts? The 2009 Seniors were recruited from recruiting class ranked 5th in 2005 by He-who-must-not-be-named....2009 we had our highest AP finish at 14th. We had lots of athletes contributing from a top ranked recruiting class. Now look at our 2008 class and see if you recognize the names (rivals ranked 30th)...you'll notice that many of them did not live up to or exceed their ranking....because they didn't pan out or contribute much here at Nebraska. The same is true for the 2009 class...a lot of swings and misses...though it was better than 2008 (rivals ranked 28th). I'm looking forward to the time where our 2010 and 2011 athletes begin contributing. That time is NOW...2014. They've been in the system for a few years...they've put on some muscle and matured and they've seen the coaching change churn STOP finally so they have some continuity. I'm excited for this next year because our best recruits are moving into contributing roles. My optimism for 2014 is the highest it has been since before the 2010 season and I think I've given plenty of evidence for others to be excited about it as well. Makes sense. And... I do not disagree that what you point out is reason to hope. I hope too. But I do not predict that NU will be much different next season anyway. NU under this staff just has not had it and every year there is reason to hope and yet... nothing changes much anyway. NU finds a way to appear hopeful about to break out and have that year the fans have wanted... and fall short (for different reasons each season... but the same reality... they fall short). So... my reservation about forward movement is more lack of faith that this staff can get it done. You and Mavric have good points re: reasons to expect improvement and they are rational. I just am unconvinced that when it comes down to it that this staff can get it done... at least in any sustained way. That is, I can see why you two predict improvement and your arguments have merit... I just remain unconvinced that actual improvement will be made (again in any sustained way).

I know you did not have me in view with this, but... Trying to make quantitative --- or semi-quantitative -- correlations of recruiting vs. on-field performance is interesting, provides surface area for debate and is a good diversion from work making a nice post to read, but... not very valuable predictively. One can state, generally --- and there are exceptions --- but generally.. programs that recruit well compete well & programs that do not recruit as well do not compete as well. Programs that perform below their recruiting level consistently are likely struggling with player development or have had a rash of injuries, tough schedule... or some other extenuating circumstances. Teams that over perform have great coaching. As for NU. NU is not a top recruiting team nor is it a particularly competitive program. And... NU's recruiting does not appear to be --- in a sustained way --- trending. The 2012 and 2013 classes seem better than the two which preceded them and that looked like the beginning of a positive trend... but this class, at least on paper... is likely more akin to the earlier, lesser classes. So a sustained trend is seemingly not there.

again my stating that NU has been #3 to # 5 at the seasons end each of the past 4 years is testimony suggesting that NU has been consistently upper middle of the conference... and qualitatively not legitimately competing for the best team in the conference (NU played Wis, and got rolled... during a season that OSU was ineligible... NU was, at best, #3 in the conference even though they were in the championship game). Does anybody really think NU was second best in the conference any of the past 4 years? Does anyone even think NU has been close to a conference championship level team these past 4 years? I didn't think so. That is the point. I used qualitative language "upper middle" to indicate that NU has been solid... but not a contender (even in a weak conference). Now, back to the question at hand... NU does not appear to be regressing to me... or advancing. Seems NU is in a holding pattern. I also see no concrete reason to predict any meaningful or sustained regression or advance in the immediate future. What has been is... and seemingly will continue.

Interesting that you say #3-5 when the last five years we've been 2-2-5-2-5. I guess that just fits the narrative better. I do not believe that when bowls were assigned that NU was # 2-2-5-2-5. And... one of those #2's was when OSU was on probation and they were the #1 team (but not counted). Also... you count as a #2 when NU loses in the championship game and place NU as #2 on that basis when it is reasonable that the #2 (or even #3) team in the other division was better than NU that year. So... I would say that NU was really #3 or lower in the conference each of the last 4 years with NU # 5 on several of them. I also only went back 4 years so... I'd say 3-5-3-5 over the past 4 years... exactly as I stated.

While you may personally think this, Mavric is (IMO) presenting pretty telling facts that directly disagree with what you're saying. seems to me NU is not really trending at all. To assert that NU is seriously in regression or seriously in progression is not something that can be really defended. Modest regression or modest progression, I guess, is defensible. I'd say that NU has been upper mid-conference level OK as a team for a while and that has not changed much nor is it likely to change much anytime soon. Seems that NU has been, and continues to be, generally a #3-5 conference team (in a weak conference) and a #20-#30 national-level team. Nothing has changed for a while and nothing indicates that any significant change is likely in the immediate future. Do you think things have or will change? I think things have not changed much in the final analysis over the past 4 years. Sure, from one season to the next the D might improve but the O regresses. Or, dropping passes which plagued the team 3 years ago... that was improved, but other aspects of the team went the wrong way. So... sure, certain units within the team have changed from year-to-year and certain aspects of the team have changed too. But, taken on the whole... NU is #3-#5 conference wise and #20-#30 nationally --- not really vying for anything meaningful when all is said and done. They get there each year somewhat differently but the final positioning is pretty constant. Do I expect improvement? No. Not until a new staff is put in charge. At least no improvement that is major or sustained (then again, I do not see major regression either). But, I'd guess that with this staff we have seen what we will see... and like groundhog day (the movie) it will recycle through year to year until the staff goes.

While you may personally think this, Mavric is (IMO) presenting pretty telling facts that directly disagree with what you're saying. seems to me NU is not really trending at all. To assert that NU is seriously in regression or seriously in progression is not something that can be really defended. Modest regression or modest progression, I guess, is defensible. I'd say that NU has been upper mid-conference level OK as a team for a while and that has not changed much nor is it likely to change much anytime soon. Seems that NU has been, and continues to be, generally a #3-5 conference team (in a weak conference) and a #20-#30 national-level team. Nothing has changed for a while and nothing indicates that any significant change is likely in the immediate future.

The problem is he would be going against players just as fast as he is if not faster. Also you are comparing him against people that have been kick returning for quite a long time. Some say if truly healthy he is a legit 4.3 guy, so not many guys on there would be just as fast or faster if that would be the case....however I don't think he'll run that low due to injuries, bulking up after Freshman year, etc. I said he might be a chance if he runs fast enough 40 (4.3), it'll be interesting to see what he does run. I will guess he will run a low 4.5 to mid 4.5 forty -- something like 4.50 - 4.55 in the forty. He is fast (a 4.50-4.55 is fast) but nowhere near as fast as he once was. After about the 8th or so game his freshman year he has been much less quick and fast than he was initially. As pointed out... injuries & bulking up (but I would assume, mostly bulking up) are the likely culprits. I am thankful to Tmart for all he did... he was a trooper, a kid with heart who carried the Huskers on his back at times and he had a really, really good college career. Very glad he was a Husker and he should be viewed as a Husker legend alongside another 15-20 Huskers over the years who did Husker nation proud. All that being said... he will not make an NFL roster. Few do so this is no indictment. He simply is not the proper fit and he has been (and perhaps still is) hobbled. Many very good to great college players never make the NFL... again, this is no indictment of Taylor to say that he is most likely to fall into that category. typo from above --- I meant to say injuries are main reason for his loss of speed...

The problem is he would be going against players just as fast as he is if not faster. Also you are comparing him against people that have been kick returning for quite a long time. Some say if truly healthy he is a legit 4.3 guy, so not many guys on there would be just as fast or faster if that would be the case....however I don't think he'll run that low due to injuries, bulking up after Freshman year, etc. I said he might be a chance if he runs fast enough 40 (4.3), it'll be interesting to see what he does run. I will guess he will run a low 4.5 to mid 4.5 forty -- something like 4.50 - 4.55 in the forty. He is fast (a 4.50-4.55 is fast) but nowhere near as fast as he once was. After about the 8th or so game his freshman year he has been much less quick and fast than he was initially. As pointed out... injuries & bulking up (but I would assume, mostly bulking up) are the likely culprits. I am thankful to Tmart for all he did... he was a trooper, a kid with heart who carried the Huskers on his back at times and he had a really, really good college career. Very glad he was a Husker and he should be viewed as a Husker legend alongside another 15-20 Huskers over the years who did Husker nation proud. All that being said... he will not make an NFL roster. Few do so this is no indictment. He simply is not the proper fit and he has been (and perhaps still is) hobbled. Many very good to great college players never make the NFL... again, this is no indictment of Taylor to say that he is most likely to fall into that category.

Populations of state and border states as of 2013: Michigan - 9.9M Wisconsin - 5.7M Illinois - 12.8M Indiana - 6.5M Ohio - 11.5M TOTAL - 46.4M Nebraska - 1.8M Colorado - 5.2M Wyoming - 0.5M S Dakota - 0.8M Iowa - 3.1M Missouri - 6.0M Kansas - 2.9M TOTAL - 20.3 So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it. outstanding point. It is tough to consistently draw recruits whose families will have a tough time traveling to see their son play. Not only does Michigan have ca. 3X the population to draw from, two others things may play in as well --- those states bordering Michigan are distributed towards more of an urban setting where football, generally, is more emphasized (I'd guess that more D1 athletes per capita are generated in the near Michigan states than in the near Nebraska states --- probably more like 8 to 1 vs. just population differential at 3 to 1) and... the travel time for families to get there geographically to see their son is more favorable (probably cheaper too). It is much easier to recruit at Michigan than at NU... a numbers game. The whole of the conference has, to varying degrees, these same advantages over NU (or nearly the whole conference with Iowa being somewhat comparable --- but even they have an advantage somewhat).

ahh. Makes sense. That said, even for the argument you were addressing, watching the film of the players is doubtless better than not... but still not overly able to equip us to know one way or another about whether it is a weak class or a stretch (or whether it is not). Again, everyone looks pretty good on film. And one never knows how film against so many different levels of competition translates to what kids will do once here. Your point though is very well taken... we cannot reasonably assert that this is a weak class (or a strong one) yet in any absolute sense. In few years perhaps we can.

Watching film certainly has value. That said, virtually every player who gets a scholly at a major conference school will look good (to varying degrees) on film. And... if you look only at the film of the guys we got --- without comparing the film to the guys say that MSU, Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State (and the rest of the conference) got --- then you really cannot say whether this class stacks up with the other schools or not. To say that this NU class is better than 5th or 6th best in the conference based on film, you would have to see the film of 12 programs X 20 players per program = ca. watching and comparing and contrasting 240 sets of film. Or... you take at face value what people (at Rivals, at 247, at Scout, etc.) who actually did do the comparative film study say. So... watch the film of the NU players... sure. But that will say nothing about how the class stacks up to the rest of the conference.

Do not expect anything to change overly with this staff still in place and with what this staff has produced on (and off) the field. Until either this staff wildly improves --- or is replaced --- expect recruiting to be like this class. Progress forward will begin, most likely, only when new leadership comes in. The only other option is for this staff to all of a sudden do what they have not yet approached doing... fielding a conference championship team, play in and win a big bowl and finish top 10. I cannot see that happening... so, once more... forward progress likely awaits a staff change.

I believe you are correct. Such a season would make a world of difference in follow-up recruiting.

You are quite correct on the chicken and egg thing. NU must over-perform relative to the "talent" they have --- that is, they must play exceedingly well with the talent they have and have a great season (likely 2 in a row) before you can expect recruiting to pick up. Until NU stops this 4 loss a season & finish on the order of #4 in a very week conference and # 22-30 or so nationally... well NU will not be attractive to great recruits. This staff has shown no indication that they can generate such results. This class is likely not a step forward. It is, at best, a status quo kinda of class and is likely somewhat of a regression. That is, of course, only on paper. It could be a class that is better than the rankings would suggest. Time will tell. But right now, it looks like NU made up no ground and likely lost some. Again... time will tell.

It is hard to look at the list and not be excited for the future. Especially the sophomore class. A lot of these guys saw decent time and made impacts at points. Young, talented, and already with some experience. Spells good things. thanks for doing this list. Very helpful. Question: Is Marcus Newby still on the team? I thought I read somewhere that he no longer is on the roster. Perhaps i am mistaken on that. So... is he still on the roster?

the 247 site has Keels ranked as a DT. he is pretty big. So... does anyone know if sliding Keels inside is probable or is it certain that he will be a DE?

There are three options re: your statement that recruiting has improved over the last three cycles. Option #1 is to agree. Which I cannot do fully... but maybe somewhat (just an impression). Option #2 is to disagree. That I cannot do. Option #3 is to confess that we do not really know one way or another because there are too many variables and there is not enough data to really concretely say anything. That is the most reasonable response. We just do not know in any definitive way whether a meaningful improvement (or any meaningful regression) is in view. If a gun were put to my head and I had to commit, I would say that perhaps the past two classes are perhaps better than the earlier ones. This class, maybe not so much. That said, we just do not know. You're right, we don't know at this point. It is too early to tell and the jury is still out. What we do know though, is that the last 2-3 classes are far more athletic than previous classes. This is not a bash on previous players but the guys out on the field on defense last year were clearly more athletically gifted than those on the field in '10, '11 and '12. That is something I don't think anybody can argue. This is what brings people to the point of saying recruiting has improved. We haven't seen any of the players from this last cycle yet but again, I think most would venture to say they look to be more athletically gifted than '10, '11, '12. If you are getting players who are more athletically gifted than in previous years, wouldn't that be considered an improvement? I think that would be considered an improvement --- at least in the area of athleticism. That is why I hedge in the direction of saying recruiting the past two years probably has improved somewhat... but like you say, only time will tell. As for the current class... we do not really know anything yet... even in terms of athleticism. So... we will see.

Wow. Looks great and the Husker tie in hopefully will be persuasive.

Dylan: i do appreciate your input and enjoy interacting with you on recruiting points. It is nice to talk Husker football with a fellow fan... sure beats working. This post is merely to apologize if the tone of anything I have posted in any way was off putting to you. I do not mean to offend. Many of your points make great sense to me. So thanks. group hugs... gotta love them.

Oh yes. Harrison does look great... I just did not comment on him because many assert he will not actually arrive here. But if he does... and who knows, he might, then I agree he is the most promising WR on film. The Peirson-El film has not generated many posts worth of comment... but he is shifty and quick... could be a great returned (if he has hands).

There are three options re: your statement that recruiting has improved over the last three cycles. Option #1 is to agree. Which I cannot do fully... but maybe somewhat (just an impression). Option #2 is to disagree. That I cannot do. Option #3 is to confess that we do not really know one way or another because there are too many variables and there is not enough data to really concretely say anything. That is the most reasonable response. We just do not know in any definitive way whether a meaningful improvement (or any meaningful regression) is in view. If a gun were put to my head and I had to commit, I would say that perhaps the past two classes are perhaps better than the earlier ones. This class, maybe not so much. That said, we just do not know.

Dylan: i do appreciate your input and enjoy interacting with you on recruiting points. It is nice to talk Husker football with a fellow fan... sure beats working. This post is merely to apologize if the tone of anything I have posted in any way was off putting to you. I do not mean to offend. Many of your points make great sense to me. So thanks.

I do in fact agree with your premise. It is certainly possible to out perform recruiting ratings. Many programs do. Also, it is possible to under perform relative to recruiting ranking --- I would hold recent North Carolina, Texas, USC, Michigan and Florida as program examples. Like you Dylan, I concur that on field performance is the metric of value. Recruiting rankings are fun though because it gives us something to talk about after the season ends. And... such rankings are so speculative that ample grounds for all sorts of interesting interchange exists. In this class, the film on a few of the guys stands out to me and I am excited about --- of course, no telling how they will do at the next level, but McClain, Wills, Newell, and a guy not too many have spoken about Pierson-Els all look like hopefuls (others too... but these guys on film looked particularly good).